How irksome it is to have to agree with John Bolton for once.
6
I almost always read your columns. I don't always agree with you because I am liberal. Your piece today was spot on. I had forgotten about the Kim's history on nukes. Thanks for reminding us.
14
Contrary to Trumps bellowing and chest-thumping - its Kim who made this happen. As well as Moon-jae, whose pragmatism towards Kim needs more applause.
But Kim continued the NK pursuit of nukes, and as such got the parties to the not yet built (size, shape and seating plan TBD) table.
Nobody calls out the negotiators for the guy holding hostages with a stuffed teddy bear. "I want a million dollars unmarked, un-inked, and a plane to Belize...or I beat these people with a plush toy!"
Contrary to Trump claiming a bigly win - Kim won! He aint gonna give up all his nukes. Why would he? When he and Trump shake hands - Trump might as well raise Kim's arm overhead like a boxer being declared, "winner and new pudgy-belt, soft-hands champion!"
Which IF this ends with a peace treaty, and NK coming to the side of the West - and giving up dealing with his bad-actor cohorts - is great! But its Kim's win. Moon-jae-in next.
Trump, like Reagan, just happens to be in the right place at the right time. To give any real credit to Trumps role in a real and positive outcome - is absurd. Kim didnt suddenly reach out to SK/Moon-jae, cause Trump called him "little rocket-man". Or the big and baddest threat of all times of retaliation.
Kim built a nuclear teddy-bear so to force a meeting.
And if Kim is paying attention, he also knows Trumps hold on power is fleeting.
Kim won this match. Good for everyone should this end in real progress. But then there's the historical record...
5
Am I the only person who finds it ironic at best that the only nation who has ever used nuclear weapons on civilians is setting itself up as the arbiter of who can and cannot have them?
9
I'm beginning to think Trump might be less dangerous to world stability then I thought.No matter what happens with Mr Kim,Trump will tell us how great the negotiations went(believe me folks this was historic...a great deal that will go down in history .....fantastic...I almost don't believe my success etc.).His Fox news stooges will echo his remarks.Then Trump will move on to his next public relations boondoggle.He gives his supporters what they crave....tough talk with no results.He will announce tough trade sanctions and then quietly fail to put them into effect.The rest of the world is beginning to realize that Trump is "all hat and no cattle."They are content to let him yammer on.At his core, Trump is a coward.He is the schoolyard bully who knows that if he pushes things too far,he's going to get punched in the nose.Bolton,who admitted that he'd joined the National Guard in order to avoid serving in Vietnam from 1970 to 1976 while he attended law school ,is the real danger.Another "chickenhawk" pushing the agenda that other people can die fighting for what he believes in.
4
"... 80,000 to 130,000 prisoners enslaved in Pyongyang’s gulags." Compare that to the 2,000,000+ prisoners in the US. While social conditions in North Korea deserve to be deplored, citing data meant to demonize is not justified.
I, too, hope that the upcoming negotiations will turn out better than the previous ones. Given the stakes, we should keep trying. But we need to keep in mind that North Korea's nuclear weapons program is there for a very simple reason: they fear US violence against them, and see that countries not having a nuclear capability has opened up those countries to US invasion.
5
Chinese scientists tell us that Kim exploded a 100 kiloton nuclear bomb under his impregnable mountain test site and collapsed the mountain on it. It is thus unusable at the moment and perhaps for some time to come.
Is it because they are Chinese that we don't believe them? With all our spy satellites, have we no way of verifying this important fact?
Kim is not launching any missiles. Could that be because he has run out of rocket fuel? That was the goal of the latest sanctions, supported by China. Have they worked? Do our great "intelligence" agencies know?
If these two suppositions (no test site; no fuel) are valid, nature and withholding of nurture have given us an unusual opportunity to drive a hard bargain with him.
China is essential to this position. The collapsed test site ( and its nuclear waste) are only sixty miles from the Chinese border. Kim's continued lack of rocket fuel depends on continued Chinese cooperation. How do the Chinese want this to end?
Could we get some reporting on these factors and consider them instead of rehashing old scenarios that may no longer reflect "facts on the ground?"
Kim may now be a little toothless tiger. Can he be kept one?
7
One thing about Mr. Stephen's columns that I can always count on is his utter lack of offered solutions. In his case, it's 'let us do nothing'. Not good enough sir.
As an aside related to the gulag charge, the US has the highest rate of imprisonment of any country in the world. It's roughly equivalent to the rate for North Korea. Of course I'm not saying North Korea is a better purveyor of justice, but rather that we desperately need to address our serious predilection for putting people in jail. People in glass houses.....
6
As I see it. (and truly no one but me cares)
1. Trump has already put this in the Win, "I'm the bigliest, best President ever!" column. All he cares about is the image of him, and the news crawl/ticker, declaring the historic first, meeting Kim. Nothing else but the historic asterisk matters. He's already won the war, now, today, before any thing meaningful has even taken place, or put on paper. Forget the reality down the road. He gets to crow and boy will he crow. Ad nauseum.
2. For me, this is akin to the over the top accolades Reagan received for the demise of the USSR. And fall of the Berlin Wall. Sure he had a hand in it...but he didn't cause it. He wasn't the chef, or the chief architect. He happened to be in the right place at a momentous moment. The guy plucking the last finger off the ledge.
3. This is truly Moon-jae and Kims moment.
4. IF this leads to peace and NK joining the West (lets remember NK needs to dump Russia, and all the other bad actors they play with) "We" need to honor not the stage front players like Trump - but all the diplomats, intelligence agents (who will remain nameless of course) on both sides who did the true hard work. And might have lost their lives.
Its time we truly honor those supporting actors/agents who do so much difficult work behind the scenes. Who slog it out day and year after year - without the accolades, medals and awards. People who go into the profession of diplomacy out of a need, a passion, or to fulfill a promise.
5
For the past several days (actually months, when the Korean government was building the hype), I appeared to be one of the few Koreans incredulously watching my fellow Koreans and the international society act as if they have no recollection of all the broken promises from North Koreans.
It is a relief to see finally in Bret Stephens somebody, in clear terms, shows that this is another of the same political theater.
While the interest of the US readership has spiked due to NK's nuclear capacity, it should be noted that NK's disingenuous actions have existed long before that, and a strong SK-US bond was absolutely necessary in deterring their bad behavior. That was also responsible for SK's remarkable economic and democratic development, and the US has the claim to the most reliable ally in the region.
6
Let me propose a different, more sinister scenario. Trump's hold on office is worsening every day. Putin gives Trump a huge diplomatic victory with NK, bolstering his fellow authoritarian in the U.S. presidency? Kim goes along because despite his nerve and his skill, he is in a precarious nuclear standoff with the U.S. Putin can offer Kim guarantees that would more than compensate for the concessions he would need to make to give Trump his "victory." Kim is also far safer with Trump in the White House, since Trump is of one mind and spirit with Kim and Putin, and likely compromised by Putin. Trump's victory would therefore also be Kim's. The NK elite would profit infinitely more with sanctions removed. With accolades from inside his regime and from the world (including the Nobel Prize), Kim could then move toward modernizing his economy, ameliorating his concern about internal unrest, allowing a loosening of controls, further pleasing his people. Putin would also quietly be assuring Trump that Kim will not misbehave.
This works for the Chinese too. While they may be uneasy at their loss of control over the North, Xi will see that solidifying Trump’s tenure is more valuable than any loss of face or primacy in NK. While a genuine peace in Korea cannot be seen as anything but desirable, we are facing the possibility of achieving this at the unconscionable cost of maintaining a Russian stooge as our president. Can any more nefarious nightmare be imagined?
7
It appears that the current path to a potential treaty is primarily the result of inter Korean negotiations as opposed to a US brokered deal. But it is likely Trump will botch any deal and life will carry on. And certainly the corporate mobsters who make a huge windfall off of US military presence in S Korea are not going to stand for it.
2
Saber-rattling makes for rousing copy but bad policy.
Peacemakers, on the other hand tend be boring and are usually forgotten.
After he was elected, but before he was inaugurated, Dwight Eisenhower came to Korea (he landed at my base but we never saw him) to see the war first hand.
Shortly after taking office, Ike brokered the armistice that let US GI's come home.
Thanks to Ike who wanted to send GI's home, I was able to shorten my 4 year hitch to 2 and take advantage of the GI bill for Korean vets that he sponsored.
It was an awful, tenuous peace for sure and many here called Ike an appeaser (the slur du jour used by red baiters back then)
Tens - possibly hundreds - of thousands more young men on both sides would have died in that senseless war had Ike not heroically ended it.
65 years later, there's at least some hope that that war will finally end and the Korean people will have the peace that they deserve.
We tend to erect statues for warriors and not for peacemakers, but let's pause and remember Dwight Eisenhower when we think about the possibility of peace in Korea.
8
Let’s face it: we just don’t know what Kim is up to. The startling fact is that he appears to be willing to negotiate on both nuclear weapons AND missiles, even though the two programs are at vastly different stages of advancement. The nuclear weapons are reliable, high-yield and ready. He has about fifty of them. The long-range missiles are still years away from being a credible threat to the US. The range is there, but not the accuracy, and accuracy is the difficult part. So here is my guess on Kim’s plan: in return for a peace treaty, easing of sanctions, economic aid, he will give up on the costly missile program. He will also agree to shut down the existing reactor (and the new experimental one) plus the enrichment program. But he will keep his nukes. They are his deterrent insurance policy. If he ever starts to feel seriously threatened, he could smuggle them into South Korea, Japan, or the U.S. In fact, we cannot ignore the possibility that he has already done so, but that’s another matter…
1
Once equipped with enough nuclear capability to deter threats to his country and the regime the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un can now afford to play peace diplomacy to earn legitimacy and the de facto nuclear power status, not to mention the possible end of the sanctions and the isolation.
3
Right you are! And our president, so proud of his deal-making prowess and so desperately hungry for praise from the establishment, has painted himself into a corner and must make a deal - even a very bad deal. He wants to have a chance at a Nobel Prize. As much as I would like this to end well for the Koreas and the World, I fear it will not and I'm pretty sure Kim and Xi are skillfully feeding Trump sufficient rope to hang himself, South Korea, Japan, and the West.
6
Although I don't normally agree with Mr. Stephens' views, after all he really believed, and still believes that Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons, I have to agree with him that Trump is not the one to negotiate with Kim Jong-un. Kim Jong-un will eat Trump for breakfast. In fact, there doesn't look like there is anyone in the Administration that can do the job. Whatever happens in any negotiations with North Korea , I feel it will set the stage for the absorption of South Korea in the Totalitarian North. If that happens, millions of South Koreans will be exterminated and Kim's nuclear bomb tipped missiles with be able to command mos of the norther Pacific, Australia and the West Coast of the USA.
3
This entire potential Kim-Trump meeting has been driven solely by Kim.
Kim got the meeting with the President of the United States, which every NK leader has tried to get but failed, by accelerating his missile-bomb development. Late last year he declared the effort complete and stopped testing bombs and launching missiles. He then sent athletes to the Korean Olympics along with his sister who easily outshined Pence by just sitting there (Pence took no notice of her as no own did of him). And now Kim offered a meeting to Trump which he snapped up with no qualifying conditions. Kim then went to China on a state meeting to gain their support and then had the summit meeting with Moon to further cleave South Korea from the US.
Not too shabby for a guy Trump calls "Little Rocket Man"
Now that Trump has been maneuvered into a meeting with Kim when Kim has a self-professed nuclear missile capability to reach the US and is in the strongest position NK has basically ever been, the question is why should Kim give up the basis for his ability to move events ? What does the US really have to offer?
On the other hand, South Korea has what Kim wants and knows from history that Moon and South Korea is ready to deal for far less than the US would demand. Let's not forget that Moon is a player here too who wants to see Korea reunited as it was before the war.
Fortunately, we have the "smartest man in the room" as Trump thinks of himself so what do we have to worry about?
7
Kim Jong-un needs foreign exchange to pay for the hampers of caviar, truffles and other waistline enhancing goodies he flies in weekly from Fortnum & Mason, London's finest purveyor of exotic foods and wines. Trump, who can always recognize a fellow trencherman, albeit one with better taste, will doubtless oblige, making the Art of the Deal the Art of the Meal.
4
It’s all showmanship, perfectly fitting Trump’s only talent. The nuclear showdown of words, was just a show and the detente of meetings will just be a show too. True peace negotiations need objectives and sincere participants.
Trump never has any objective other than his own glory, Kim plays for time and Moon might be the sole negotiator in this threesome who seriously wants peace. However South Korea is only afraid of two outcomes: a desperate nuclear North and reunification.
Nobody holds a vision for a peaceful Korea. Without it we will just witness an empty exercise that allows all parties to live on borrowed time.
3
Remember the basic premise of “The Mouse that Roared” - in order to prosper, one must make war on the United States, and lose” - thereby winning grants of all kinds of aid.
New method - threaten the US, say you will back down, and win grants and aid.
Trump is on a Look Presidential PR campaign, as evidence of deals with Russia to become President, and rampant post-Election use of office for personal gain, along with collections of boasts and evidence of legal but unappealing sexual misconduct and a dysfunctional marriage, this one #3, mount.
He’ll sell out the country to cover all that up - it’s “the art of the deal”.
5
The first Cold War was managed poorly by the Soviets. They lost that one. The second under Putin seems to be winning. Their biggest triumph is trump and the rise of dictatorship. Mr Kim watched as his father bungled diplomacy and eventually was no further along than his own father was. Mr Kim has everything to gain and only a few worthless missiles to lose. What are they good for after all. Like a suicide pill, it’s meaningless really. However if you can sell the south on your sincerity and get meaningful technology transfers, why wouldn’t he. Then there is the possibility of infiltration of your people into the south. Legitimately as diplomats. China is the puppeteer playing a long game. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan. The Philippines have signed on. Mr Kim and his bridge for a Trojan horse. Or is it president Xi and his Trojan horse.
2
a couple of thoughts.....
1. the smiles on the two korean leader's faces were an interesting contract: kim - "i can't believe i am getting away with this" moon - extremely forced and "i don't trust you further than i could throw you".
2. north korea is already a nuclear power and there is nothing to be done about it. i believe that all the people that count in the trump administration know this.... so what is the little theater really about? i am sure it can't be good.
4
Sounds like Bret might be worried that Trump will succeed where others failed.
What would Bret, the NYT, and the progressives do?
Perhaps say it was all set up by Obama, or maybe even Hillary when she was Secretary of State,
Let's just hope that it doesn't succeed,
3
Bret, it's so nice to see how deeply you care about human rights. We eagerly await your casually floating the idea of "regime change" in Saudi Arabia and Israel in your next column.
3
'Spare a thought, while watching the two Korean presidents behave like old friends, for the 80,000 to 130,000 prisoners enslaved in Pyongyang’s gulags.'
And, to keep things in perspective, every time another country negotiates with the US, they should keep in mind that this country was founded on the partial annihilation of the native people of the Americas, and the death of millions of black people in the process of bringing them over from Africa to become slaves in the newly created US of A!
Without that perspective, they may end up signing treaties with a country that they only know as the most powerful country in the world, both militarily, economically and in many other ways.
3
Dreamer: Claiming that this country was founded on the principle of slavery and annihilation of the indigenous people is simply a gross distortion of reality.
1
Donald Trump winning the Nobel Peace Prize. That thought in particular makes me cringe. Are we really willing to despoil one of the greatest honors on the planet? The Nobel Peace Prize is meant to honor truly great individuals - are we really ready to forgive and forget Donald Trump's transgressions and give him this prize? He became President; what's to say there won't be some fluke and peace breaks out on the Korean peninsula, are you going to give HIM the Nobel Peace Prize for it? My cynicism about humanity knows no depths, but this one truly tests my emotional bathysphere.
4
Kim is working American public and Trump by raising huge expectations. Act 1 was the barrage of tests to scare everyone, act 2 was to make the public desperate for some resolution, act3 will be getting concessions from Trump.
As much as I would want to give Trump some credit, he has done nothing, and said nothing, to prove that he understand the situation. The whole process has been driven by Kim and now by Moon. Yesterday Trump looked kind of overwhelmed when asked about negotiations. Now the ball is in US hands, and is Trump up to the challenge? I don’t think so, he is way over his head.
5
Kim is playing Trump like a toy, he is presenting himself as conciliatory and amiable to peace in a peaceful way, knowing Trump prefers to go off on his "Little Rocket Man" nuke the world tirade of intimidation. Kim wants to negotiate his desires in the court of public opinion and he knows Trump will loose face if he reverts to his comfort zone of bellicose bully tactics.
4
"Better advice for the White House: If you have no good options, stick to the status quo. It’s served us well enough for 65 years."
Really? Really?
The status quo has brought us to this point, with North Korea working to develop deadlier nuclear weapons, and a ballistic missile system to strike targets thousands of miles away.
The status quo has also brought us to a position where South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan --- appropriately fearful of North Korea --- are on the verge of creating their own nuclear weapons. And how will China react to that?
Some status quo to be maintained!
3
It's not surprising we would embrace the prospect of peace and denuclearized North Korea. But this is a fantasy. Trump's declaration "KOREAN WAR TO END!!!" is as fantastical as if he'd declared "WE'RE ALL GOING TO LIVE FOREVER!!!" because a) nobody lives forever, b) there is no relationship between the symbolic ending of a "war" that was never a war in the first place and has had the pause button pushed for the past 60 years, and the denuclearization of NK, and c) Kim is never going to give up his nukes.
Here's a thought experiment: Which country is most likely to dismantle its entire nuclear arsenal? The world's most powerful nation, the one that spends more on defense than the next 7 countries combined, the one that wields unrivaled military and economic power throughout the world? Or the one that feels its very existence threatened by that all-powerful nation?
It is inconceivable that the US would, under any circumstances, agree to dismantle its nuclear arsenal. And this from a position of unchallenged power. How, then, can it possibly be conceivable that North Korea would do so, with the threat of annihilation at the hands of the satanic U.S. the equivalent of a religious dogma. Does Kim simply go on national television and say "You know how for 3 generations we've been warning that the U.S. is going to destroy our country? I was wrong."
I rather believe he gathered his advisers together and said "Get the bridge ready. I've got another buyer."
5
'It soon became clear that the North’s declaration was incomplete. Pyongyang evicted inspectors the following April and conducted a nuclear test the next month.'
Bret Stephens, like any other blue-blooded American, is certainly upset that a tiny, good-for-nothing, poor, communist country like NK developed nuclear weapons, almost on their own, just like the great countries like the US, UK, France, etc.
But it seems to me that without their having developed nuclear weapons, there would never be any 'peace bridge' on the Korean peninsula.
I know it is an irony, but that is the way it is.
2
The only difference is that the bridge is now also sponsored by South Korea and Trump loves real estate. He is already boasting that he is the chosen one to create peace. Lets see where everything goes from here. With Trump I have learned to play it by ear and fear the unexpected worse.
3
Now Trump claims he is responsible for bringing peace to the world with his bellicose approach and Fox News clamors for the Nobel Peace prize. This reminds me of the clamor to sanctify Reagan for bringing down the Soviet Union, when, In fact, It was Gorbachev with is Glasnost and Perestroika that did the trick. Now, it seems that Moon-Jae-in with his rapprochement policy that moved Kim-Jon-un. But we don't know how far Jon-un is being moved.
2
Americans should all be praying that the country doesn't face some national crisis during Trump's tenure that calls for intelligent and decisive action by the president.
3
It was painful for me to read this 'status-quo containment' argument. It ignores the fact our Cold War conflict with the Soviet form of communism contributed to blunders all over Asia—not the least of which was the U.S. policy regarding the entire pre-WWII Korean Peninsula and then our post-WWII policy to the purges on the island of Cheju. From their perspective, it is natural to question a U.S. hard-line argument regarding their country—especially among older Korean generations who remember the colonial rule of the Japanese.
I don't have a problem with being cynical about Kim Jong-un's intentions. But I do have a problem with this lack of cultural perspective when it comes to understanding a place that is distant from our own. It should be this country's goal to assist South Korea in any re-unification effort no matter how bleak the prospect. A foreign policy that refuses to engage in productive talks is doomed to war.
2
Mr. Stephens, your characterizations of Clinton's agreement with North Korea is not entirely accurate and left out a very key component to that deal; the agreement to build a light water nuclear reactor (in addition to providing the nuclear fuel to power it), which does not require weapons grade enrichment, in exchange for North Korea's weapons grade enrichment program.
Initial investments were made by the Clinton Administration to build the reactor, but the remaining funding was pulled by the Bush Administration and the GOP.
It was then that North Korea restarted its weapons grade enrichment program.
This does not mean that North Korea has been the best of partners. Of course not, but we do have this tendency to send, at best, mixed messages based on political huff and puff, in the moment political strategy.
Which makes the current stance of President Apprentice all the more bewildering, especially in relation to our current treaty with Iran.
If Trump follows through on his threat to leave the treaty because he thinks he wants to expand its meaning (maybe), what can he offer to the North Koreans that anyone would believe?
What compelling reason would Kim give up anything if the dynamics can change due to the whims of our reality TV star president?
It is best that North and South Korea go it alone and try to find ways to solve their own problems, then let President Apprentice congratulate himself. His cult will scream MAGA and onward to the next episode.
4
History may rhyme but it does not repeat. Kim is in a vastly different situation than his predecessors. China is ascendant and can provide security so Kim can take risks that his father and grandfather could not. If needed the nuclear capability could be rebuilt quickly by a far more wealthy Korea.
The question on the horizon is what can Trump give that would satisfy Kim? It would be far more than relief from sanctions. The demonstration of nuclear capability is a negotiating position towards all relevant parties - China, Japan and Russia not just the U.S.
The DPRK and South Korea would have most to gain from a unified Korea. It would be the among the most powerful militaries in the world coupled with one of the highest rates of innovation and established position in multiple industries that are gaining increased prominence in the world. The Korean economy could potentially overtake Japan economically while retaining a major military advantage. That seems to be the prize in the eyes of both Moon and Kim. Neither the U.S. nor China could toy with such a Korea. Giving up nuclear capabilities would be no big deal with such a prospect.
2
The difference between the current potential agreement and the previous attempts is that the previous deals were brokered by the United States whereas this is a joint attempt by the leaders of North and South Korea.
Prior to its conquest by the Japanese in 1935, Korea was a single nation. At the end of World war 2 the US and the Soviet Union had different ideas as to what to do with Korea and agreed to divide the country at the 38 th parallel. The South became a democracy under the guidance of the US whereas Joseph Stalin set up the North as a communist dictatorship.
Thus Korea became one of the many victims of Western nations remapping areas of the world for their own convenience. Areas of the world continue to be unstable as a result of arbitrary drawing of the map.
Although this may attempt at peace may fail, I am hopeful that it will succeed since it is based on a desire by the people of both North and South Korea to reunify as one nation.
1
What is wrong about trying to influence another society by illumination, by asking for more cooperation, cultural and information flow, even if not all goals about the current nuclear arsenal they have are met?
Societies change by education, by comparison to other societies, by cultural and material progress.
Lets have a deal about a more open society first, the change will be the logical result of it in a speed that no other method can match.
Because the GOP is claiming victory before the negotiations even begin, Trump must produce a peace announcement at the conclusion. Time is the key here. Time for Trump to declare sucess right before the November elections, and time for Kim to go into full production of the missiles he has already tested.
Trump cares nothing about the Korean Peninsula; he only cares about announcing success.
9
I have a different take on this. Aside the the realpolitik and geopolitics, self interest, and the deeply disgusting inhumane Trump, we are watching a young many grow up.
I've long since given up on Trump (disagree with him: you're fired, now he thinks he can fire Senators!). But I have a glimmer of hope that with the Olympics and the consolidation of power, Kim Jong Un is actually growing into an adult human being. I may be wrong, but it is interesting.
The fortunate coincidence of the South Korean Olympics opened a door, and people are actually looking at each other. Trump lost that ability a long time ago, but I'm willing to indulge in a tiny glimmer of hope that KJU is no longer his "brother from another mother".
Another tidbit: KJU's schoolmates in Switzerland said he was quite pleasant. Also, he actually qualified in engineering. Trump has never qualified in anything but bullying and lies.
However, a little birdie told me that North Korea's launching facility is broken, so it may be this is all a sham, just once again gaming the situation for advantage.
3
The status quo from 44.5 would probably see populism from the left win big and build the environmental infrastructure and wider health supports much sooner after significant constitutional corrections. But centre-left South Korea, Japan and China might still be hard to catch up to for the US if this is the way centrist Asia works together on an issue like this.
A Warren Administration sounds like an example of a fast way to catch up, with both houses in her ranks. She might even keep Secretary Pompeo who could be proving a natural himself.
Fascinating!
We have to prefer peace to nuclear war, and we have to hope that Trump is not humiliated by the little rocket man because Trump recruited Bolton to start wars, and we don't want to see a war in Korea.
This is really about how long Trump and Kim can spin out the good media coverage. But if Trump says nothing gets better until you hand over one of your nukes, then nothing is left for Trump but to go back to starting a war via Twitter.
Some part of me remains convinced that the Combined Chiefs would simply refuse to obey an order to attack North Korea. I can't say why I think that - let's say it is some kind of desperate hope they are people of reason and honour.
If Trump were to miraculously broker an agreement and Kim actually started to denuclearise, that would be great, but it wouldn't affect my overall opinion of Trump. Trump is putting humanity and the planet at risk in more ways than one.
I don't care for Stephens' opinion in general and here he is just playing it safe by predicting disaster on the basis of Trump's obvious shortcomings and track record - as well as that of the Kim family. But you have to think that he's correct.
It is impossible to understand the hundreds of millions of people who seem to have no insight into just how existentially dangerous Trump is while he is in office. Trump threatens your life, your existence - why are you just watching?
As John Oliver has said, "Trump needs to be stopped! Now!"
4
Kim's sudden change of tune makes me very suspicious. What I wonder is: Could the reason for his sudden quite unexpected offer to get rid of all of his nukes have anything to do with all of the nukes have been set off in his small country for the past several years at his behest? Could it be that half of the North Korean population now glows in the dark? Didn't we find nuclear exposure in two different N. Korean soldiers who defected? I certainly doubt if it has anything to do with him growing a conscience.
1
"Jaw, jaw, is better than war, war.", as Churchill noted. It's apparent the South Korean President, and his government, are doing the heavy lifting and taking all the risk. Meanwhile, Cadet Bone Spurs takes all the credit with his pouting lips and jutting jaw. He's a legend in his own mind and the imaginations of his enablers. The DPRK's Lucy has always yanked away the football from hapless Charlie Browns in the past. We shall see if Kim Il Sahm (or Kim the Third), as the South Koreans refer to him, is any different. The presence of Bolton and Pompeo is not exactly reassuring.
2
He ran out of rocket engines.
Ummm ... Were I Pompeo (or Moon or Abe), I'd give a lot to be a fly on the wall in Xi's office.
" ... and Bre'r Fox, he lay low."
2
No, the status quo cannot now “serve us well.”
North Korea has atom bombs and the ICBMs to deliver them. Thanks to five administrations which achieved little.
Give Trump some cred, brother.
They’ll still let you write for the Times.
4
Actually, it was Bush II and Republicans who derailed an effective Clinton/Albright initiative. Wrong again.
4
This is just a terrible argument. You think the status quote has worked? Why? Because we haven’t had nuclear war and only 100,000 people are in the North Korean gulag.
According to your logic, failed negotiations is part of the status quo. This 65-year long standoff has to end somehow. Perhaps Kim Jong-un is the one to do it.
1
Trump has one and only one motive in going to the talks with Kim and that is self aggrandizement.
He sees it as way to receive adulation from a bigger audience and do something that the uppity Black POTUS who proceeded him was unable to do. And perhaps even get a Nobel Peace Prize too.
Kim will play Trump and Trump will lie about the results as he preens getting off of Air Force One. He does not know North Korea cannot test nuclear devices in the foreseeable future because the last explosion collapsed their underground testing site.
It is better than a war and nothing will change in North Korea in our life times.
3
I previously commented ( NYT pick ) on a similar article that the only question out there is what is the end game for China ?
North Korea does not even exist without the direct support of China ( 90%+ for everything from fuel to food ), so the NK leader ( I would submit it is a bunch of generals in the back ) does not do a single thing without their approval.
While the U.S. goes bankrupt ( does Russia from the cold war ring a bell ? ) trying to monitor the South China sea ( and the middle east, and, and, and ,,, ), China is massively investing in its own infrastructure and elsewhere around the world.
China continues to churn out things through its manufacturing and subsidization of whole sectors of the economy, and we in the west dutifully buy up everything. ( bypassing our local economies ) While we are eviscerating our state department and diplomatic core, China is outreaching more and more.
So essentially the end game is look over here <---- while China takes over the rest of the globe over there ----->
This administration, President and republicans are falling for it.
6
Trump will likely get his deal (or at least claim it’s his deal, even if made by the two Koreas) partly because he thinks it will save his Presidency, even if flawed. On the other hand, most say it took a Richard Nixon to open up a Communist China. We should perhaps be thinking we can use Trump here; I’m pretty sure both Kim Jong-un and President Xi are thinking they can use Trump.
I won't root against progress between the Koreas, but I also will not trust a man who has his own family members murdered, who sends innocent citizens to the gulags by the tens of thousands, who is generally fine with his own citizens starving.
Kim now has his seat at the table of power. He can table the testing for now, but there's a snowball's chance in hell that he will give up his nuclear development. Lindsay Graham and others actually mentioned trump as a Nobel Peace Prize recipient over this. Behind the scenes I imagine that China has told Kim to dial it down. Kim is likely thinking of the billions he could steal if NK joins the world at least a bit. Trump contributed nothing more to this than a mugger who caused increased vigilance by the police. I'm doubting that trump is all that popular in Nobel land.
4
Kim is a butcher. How soon we forget the fate of his uncles, his brother and all those languishing in his prisons, not to mention the North Koreans forced to forage in the forest for something, anything to eat, while Kim and his anointed feast lavishly. This peace initiative by NK is a Trojan horse of the highest order. The long stated aim of the Kim family has been to unite the Korean peninsula, but not by bringing democracy to the north. Once the American troops have been forced out, the operations against the south will begin.
1
In Trump, all the dictators and autocrats of this increasingly troubled world have the president they would like to negotiate with, an adversary they understand because he is so like them. He will not press them on human rights or democratic norms. He's looking for a celebrity win, not a resolution towards lasting peace and international cooperation. As long as they praise him and stroke his ego, he will be the best partner they could hope for in any negotiation, touting any agreement reached as a great victory for the USA and solely due to his unmatched deal-making, regardless of its merits and chances of success. So much winning...
2
I don't mind keeping or increasing sanctions to put the squeeze on North Korea, but for goodness sake, Trump is gonna wanna Stamp His Feet and BOMB NK if he doesn't get his way !!!!!
A nuclear holocaust. Well, that's one way to deflect from that pesky Russia and Stormy Daniels stuff.
1
Interesting that the summary slipped over eight years of “strategic patience” policy.
Lots of griping and harrumphing both of which sour Stephens is good at, along with pseudo history and philosophy. As for concrete suggestions— as usual, nada.
1
We are a much greater threat to North Korea and the world as a whole under our current leadership than is North Korea. They will not nuke us. They will never nuke us. However misguided and vicious kim is, he just wants to survive. We have, on the other hand, a thoroughly capricious sociopath in charge of our massive nuclear arsenal. Regime change in our country will do far more to ensure world peace than anything that can or will transpire on the north Korean peninsula. We can begin in just a few months.
3
They will have the largest army in the world. The Korean army. And that's interesting.
1
Hey, how will Kim respond to locking Hillary up? It’s sure to come up.
I LOVE that this peace is happening under the Trump administration!
Thank you president trump!
Well done.
1
Trump needs a win. Kim is cunning enough--everybody's cunning enough--to know that Trump needs a win. Trump isn't cunning enough to know that everybody in cunning enough to know that Trump needs a win.
9
Great reality check by Mr. Stephens. Let us see if two of the worlds greatest con men can find a way to lie less and build an enduring bridge to only tell the truth.
1
Nothing Kim agrees to on paper is worth anything. There should be no sanctions relief for North Korea until the Kim regime is gone.
3
Rocket Man is taking a page out of Art Of The Deal, maximize your leverage, which is nuclear arms. Why would he denuclearize, because our tweeter in chief is online bullying him with threats of regime change, which would also destroy our friends in South Korea if rocket man gets spooked and hits that button on his desk?
The Trump clown circus will fold up and leave town soon and we can look forward to having a real president back in the big house.
2
Mr. Stephens's recounting of North Korean cheating is not honest. George W Bush has significant culpability in the collapse of the Agreed Framework.
His first presidential act on Korea was to embarrass his Secretary of State Colin Powell (who should have resigned right away) when he called for a continuation of Clinton policies which had gained momentum following Madeline Albright's visit to NK in late 2000. W wanted a ground-up review instead.
This completely destroyed trust in the US as a good faith negotiating partner.
W compounded the error by including North Korea in his "Axis of Evil" speech, and when the North Koreans saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in the trumped up Iraqi war, that was all the proof they needed to confirm that pursuit of nuclear weapons was indeed a rational course, and a necessary insurance policy.
North Koreans will continue to blow hot and cold, and never give up the nuclear insurance policy. They are playing the same game of Mutually Assured Destruction that the US and USSR played for four decades during the Cold War.
NK leaders are willing to inflict endless pain on their population, and sanctions will only have a marginal impact. The rest of the world will never go all the way on sanctions; China will eventually relent or cheat because sanctions will lead to big problems on their border.
George W has more to answer for than just the Iraqi blunder and Colin Powell too.
Santayana is right once again - we will repeat history!
1
Korea was a Japanes colony before WWII, and has been divided in the Korean war, enforced by American military presence. American never owned Korea, it belings to the Koreans. Now that they want to reunify peacefully, and likely denuclearized, its much better than a shooting war. A very costly war did not prevent the reunification of Vietnam.
Its sheer arrogance for Trump or Stephens to behave as though America has the veto and knows better to change the deal between Koreans!
The well-fed NK military establishment are likely thinking "Kim is too young and naive, he better watch out for Moon's bridge sale hatched up by the CIA. We must keep the status quo for another 65 years" !
Oh, good. Trump inflames tensions well beyond high risk, and then he gets credit when they are diminshed back to where they were when he became "president." God help us if he gets credit for this.
5
I disagree. In fact, the negative response from "establishment" is so predictable.
it is very different this time. I support military action if NK cheats. Bring it on and I dare you! Trump's foreign policy principle - I dare you. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Trump must start planning a military action as the plan B. Enough is enough and this is the last chance for NK to rejoin the international community. Peace or a total destruction.
No one should trust this cruel, maniac, anymore than we trust crazy, unreliable tRump. Get ready for the tRump/bolton team to consider a first strike, leading to catastrophe. It's no wonder the Japanese are terrified.
3
Lots of griping and harrumphing both of which sour Stephens is good, along with pseudo history and philosophy. As for concrete suggestions— as usual, nada.
Observing Kim crossing the North to South Korea border it is somewhat shocking to see the poor health of this man and only about 35 years old - overweight and difficulty walking. Perhaps this is part of his desire to find a quick solution to the problems. From a health perspective Kim is running out of time.
2
Xi and Vlad throw the White House Dog a Bone !
Of course we all want peace in Korea !
This coming June will it will be 68 years of fighting.
In many ways, Kim has already won - He has "arranged" a one on one sit-down the the president of the United States!
Trump can already taste the headlines and is already taking credit for what Obama, Bush, & Clinton did not do.
Part of the victory for Kim is that he gave nothing up for this upcoming meeting - and is coming to the table as an equal instead as the leader of a subordinate power that he is.
Kim now has nuclear weapons and a delivery system - "pretty powerful position at the table" - and of course, he wants reduction and/or elimination of trade sanctions.
Kim also foresees the weakening of the USA/South Korean relationship . . .
Nothing would please China and Russia more !
Yes, Trump will probably get to prance around the Oval Office in a Victory Lap and be showered with a gushing warm Fox Glow - and a bit of some actually earned praise.
However, Trump is coming to the table with his "best game of Checkers" - A+ . . . yeah right !
And on the other side - a Strategic young leader backed by World Class Chess Masters.
Good Luck . . . No - Really - "Good Luck" !
1
I suspect the Koreas, like the rest of the world, have decided to move on down the road without the influence of the United States as presently instigated.
Donald wants to believe he was instrumental in bringing about the current detente, and it if keeps him from interfering, then fine.
As it is, the North couldn't continue as it was. Neither could the South, with the constant threat of military action. The entire region will breathe easy if this peace lasts, and Donald will take full credit.
2
With the new sanctions, we're actually in a better position than we started. There's no way we're going to improve our geopolitical position by striking a deal with Kim. Best case scenario, the deal falls apart before Trump even meets with Kim and everyone walks away. They both save face for having tried. More likely though, Trump sells out America in exchange for a diplomatic win knowing the consequences won't be felt until after 2020. Depending on how much he gives away, our situation in Korea may be irrecoverable. China and North Korea declare a new national holiday: Forrest Trump Day.
3
Spoken (written, actually) like a true conservative (small “c”). Stephens relies on history and the history he outlines is a kind of truth (there are kinds, some conflicting with others, good old American pragmatism would tell us). The question is raised, however, whether history is a proper guide when the issues are fundamentally moral and, paradoxically, historical in a different sense—can history be made if it is shackled, rather than simply informed, by history? Stephens’ sense of history is a kind of determinism, it counsels that history itself is a kind of determinism, a claim with which American pragmatism would disagree, perhaps especially with regard to international diplomacy. Diplomatic history requires the assumption of free will, even on Kim Jong-un’s part. Stephens’ conservatism is in the way here.
4
We're actually being forced to "like" John Bolton's realistic skepticism about North Korea's newly "peaceful" posture. It's a game. But Trump doesn't know how to play it. Kim's goal is to endorse a denuclearized Korean peninsula -- while he keeps his nukes and undergrounds advanced nuke development, reaping economic and diplomatic benefits. Any bets on how long before Bolton resigns?
3
Bolton resigns? Yes, the day after Trump and Kim do! Absurd.
What none of us in the progressive community can ever admit is that peace through military strength works. Anything that happens positive between the two Koreas is simply luck!
1
Trumps approach is simple.
If this fails, it’s because of his predecessors.
If this succeeds, he’s the breakthrough genius.
Whatever happens on the Korean peninsula is secondary.
27
For most of those 65 years during which the status quote served us well enough, North Korea wasn't armed with nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Now, they have the bomb so the game has dramatically changed.
This is not to say that the West should avoid a comprehensive agreement with the DPRK, but it certainly is right to seek almost any option besides war.
6
It seems that an awful lot of the credit goes to the South Korean leader( who seems adept at dancing with the two giant egos of Kim and trump.) He very wisely is content to be seen as a modest facilitator. His efforts have made the world safer and possibly life better for the long suffering North Koreans. Peace breaking out definitely curtails warmongering american advisors. Trump will want to take all the credit. But
the deal is being made between the two Koreas.
31
Considering the Clinton and Bush debacles, and Obama's do nothing appeasement philosophy, President Trump must be wary of anything N. Korea is willing to promise.
However, when it comes to foreign affairs, we now have a much more competent President and Secretary of State negotiating with N. Korea than the three previous administrations. Trump is smart enough to know he is being manipulated during a negotiation and is willing to walk away.
Always skeptical, but definitely more reason to be hopeful with Trump at the helm.
6
Larry's, Trump is the most incompetent-not to mention corrupt - president we have ever had. if he pulls out of the successful Iranian deal - achieved without a drop of American blood being spilled - then Kim jong-un will spurn any deal. I hope things work out but it is very unlikely. Why anyone would believe anything Donald Trump says is beyond me. I have never witnessed a bigger liar in politics ever.
4
Larry--More competent? Hahahahahaha!!! :-D~~~~~ (p.s.--Soon, to be ex-president, I HOPE.)
4
Did you even listen to his unhinged rant this week on Fox?
3
Summer will soon be here if the reruns have started again. I think I saw this one, I remember the ending was unsatisfactory. What else is on?
4
The best option is to intice Kim into the western economy. Unlike Libya or Iraq, where the argument has been that if they had nuclear arsenal, their regimes would not have been toppled, North Korea sits between two thriving economies—one of which is autocratic, the other wildly rich compared to North Korea. I don’t think Trump’s bluster has as much to do with Kim’s motivation as his peering over the border and asking himself, “How do I get some of that.” If we nudge him in that direction he gains power and a reluctance to cause trouble let alone a great nuclear conflagration.
2
Kim Jong-un knows just how to manipulate DJT: float a proposal that looks and sounds good on 40-second TV sound bites and that allows our president to brag about being a great negotiator — while consolidating his own power and legitimizing himself on the world stage.
And Trump continues to have no idea how he's being played for a chump.
40
What the world does not have is any defense against ICBM ballistic missiles. Before there were ballistic missiles, our "fence" was "de" ocean. We have a department of offence, not defense.
The military industrial complex does not see any long term money in defense, (De Fence) only in offense. (Off sense = weapon after weapon, plane after plane).
Therefore, a 34 years old bed-wetting despot can incinerate our whole West Coast. Kim has missile aiming technology to land an ICBM exactly on Apple headquarters, thus destroying the largest company in the world, a button away.
The state-of-art missile aiming technology originated in USA, was sold to the Chinese in the nineties, under Clinton, and was slipped to the North Koreans by the Chinese military.
Our military industrial complex has nothing to stop Kim beyond retaliation threats that ultimately don't hold water because US cannot respond with nukes as the dust will deliver radiation poisoning to 30 million Chinese - not happenning!
Kim steps over the border ans is holding all the trump cards. His brothers in the south are not going to let the North Koreans starve, so sanctions on goods to eliminate starvation may be ignored.
What does Trump bring to the table besides threats?
3
The radiation will drift west, not towards China.
1
Unfortunately, Mr.Stephens as so many commentators on North Korea fail to understand how the their leadership has been able to develop their nuclear missile program on the backs of the North Korean people.
Stalinist-style oppression has played its part but there is also the memory of the devastation the North Korean people suffered during the 1950-53 war where the USAF totally devastated North Korea by destroying 85% of its cities and towns through the use of incendiaries, explosives and napalm and killing around a million people, a number comparable to the German civilians killed by American and British bombing during WWII and greater than the Japanese civilian casualties when we firebombed all their cities.
In light of this history, all that Trump is saying with his threats of "fire and fury" is a repeat of what we have already inflicted on them. Consequently, Kim, or any other NK leader, cannot give up the only means of defending his country against such a possibility.
While the US may fear the very possibility that North Korea may have the capability of sending missiles to our shores, the North Koreans already know that the US will not hesitate to destroy all of North Korea as we've already demonstrated,
So, North Korea may offer some reduced capability in order to deal with Trump, but they will not and cannot afford to leave themselves defenseless to nuclear threat from the US and others.
4
I like the analogy to selling a bridge – I was thinking the same thing myself. I don't trust Kim.
That said, I do think, at least at this point, that negotiation is the least bad option. Let's see where it goes. We cannot accept anything less that a completely verified take down of N. Korea's entire nuclear program, including shipping out all fissile materials, shutting down reactors and intrusive inspections with no limits on where and when. In other words, an Iran-style deal. On steroids.
My guess is that this will call Kim's bluff, he won't buy it and we can go from there.
As for regime change – how did that work out in Iraq? Can't we please, for a change, learn from history?
8
You don't trust Kim? That is easy to understand. But you trust Trump? Totally crazy, bonkers.
1
Will the consummate liar Donald Trump recognize the lies of Kim or will the two liars go on the road as a Vaudeville routine and lie to us all?
I am sure that if Trump is hoodwinked he will blame it on Hillary Clinton and his base will believe him.
8
What's that George Bush once said? "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Yup.
4
This is the type of negative pablum--that couldn't imagine the fall of the Berlin Wall. It took the courage of Ronald Reagan to make the demand: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall". The truth is, Liberals are hoping and praying this doesn't work--so they can say Trump failed.
Kim Jong-un is not a complete idiot: he's a paranoid dictator. But you might think, even a paranoid dictator, once he gets out of his cocoon, can see the results of capitalism vs Marxism/Leninism. But who knows...liberals in this country haven't picked up on the differences.
4
"Kim Jong-un Sells a Peace Bridge"
Trump will buy it so he can put his name on it in tall letters, all caps, and gold-plated.
8
He did that, metaphorically, yesterday.
2
If you are credulous enough to vote for Trump in the first place, and then partisan enough to ignore his every lie, misdeed, and corrupt act since then, you are clearly stupid enough to believe that name calling on Twitter is a foreign policy, and that Trump is therefore to be credited for any good news that comes out of North Korea,
America will inevitably get rid of Trump one day, but it will never rid itself of his credulous, racist, hyper-partisan, petty, and hateful base.
22
Et tu Stephen?
I thought you are a realist, not a hard core ideologue.
We're good and stuck this time.
Trump's terrifying belligerence and incompetence has driven our ally, S. Korea, to take negotiations with their despot sibling nation into their own hands. It might be an unlikely path to peace, but they can't afford to become the collateral damage of an American attack.
Of course we can't actually attack without all hell breaking loose. Not only S. Korea would be at risk, but also Japan, with its big American naval base.
We can't unseat Kim Jong Un. There is no such thing as externally imposed regime change. Look at Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya. After our attacks, we see factions, civil war, chaos and social collapse. Nothing desirable.
We can't disarm Jong Un either. Of course he won't give up his nukes. He'd be an idiot to do that, and he's not an idiot.
The best thing to do would be condition sanctions relief on the best nuclear concessions we can win plus an opening of borders and communication with N. Korea, allowing its citizens to travel -- or emigrate. Change has to come from within.
9
Yes Bret, it may be "a bridge too far," but with Donald Trump, and his new hawkish advisers, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton (aka "Blowtorch" by The Times ), the alternative is a rapid, tweet-taunting, return to the nuclear brink before Kim Jong-un's charm offensive. Given the alternatives, I'd rather adhere to the advice, often attributed (mistakenly) to the Founding Father of the Republican Party, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." And then, of course, there's St. Ronald's advice, "Trust, but verify." In other words, "Let's give peace another chance." Who know? This Kim may actually be building a bridge; so why blow it up before we find out?
3
Coming soon: a Miss Universe Contest held in Pyongyang.
2
Republicans like to poor it on thick, even when thick is just more lies. Did America “drop the ball” on nuclear agreements? The Republican Congress cut funding for the 1994 Clinton agreement, cut oil shipments and finished it off with George W Bush’s smack down of Collin Powell’s support for the Clinton initiative.
Another Republican trope: the horrendous NK gulag. As terrible as it is America’s lost War on Drugs has made America #1 with 2.2 million imprisoned!
So now Trump is going to put his inimitable skills to work. Little or nothing was said about Trump’s FOX and Friends self dialog by FOX or conservatives. Everyone prays that no one in China, or North Korea, or Syria, or Mexico, or Russia, or Germany, or the fourth grade saw the tape of our illustrious leader? (https://youtu.be/_lu_Hgw60Ns) Really worth watching the whole interview to get a sense of what world leaders and History classes will reference.
North and South Korea will likely do what the rest of the world are doing: ignoring the United States or fleecing America. A peace bridge? what a laugh! Trump will get our troops expelled.
6
Trump to meet with the Dear Leader, and preparing to deliver his acceptance speech after winning the Nobel Peace Prize? Or, perhaps not.
Despite Trump's self-promotion as a deal-making genius, he proves every day that he is anything but. Is there any doubt that he is going to get played, bigly, by Kim Jong-Un? Trump will, predictably, ignore any advice, and warnings, he is given and impulsively react in the moment by giving away the store and claiming a big win. For himself. But what will be a very big loss for the U.S., our allies and the world at large.
2
By dropping his belligerent stance in his direct dealings with Moon, Kim is showing a different side of his personality.
Trump's problem is that either he drops his own belligerency, or he becomes the one who fouls the prospects of peace on the Korean Peninsula.
Our problem is that Trump is not smart enough to know when he is being played, and it is likely that Kim and Moon will set up the forthcoming meetings as one that enables Trump to take credit for its success. The mantra for the US should be to trust but to verify.
The easiest way for Trump to foul the process will be to insist on immediate denuclearization before agreeing to any economic or sanctions relief. If that is to be his opening gambit, he might as well stay home and to play golf. Kim and Moon may do a better job on their own.
2
I could not agree with Bret more.
While a denuclearized North Korea is a major objective it can not be our only objective or we cease being the United States. Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans have been enslaved and murdered by these thugs. They are as much entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as we are. I did not hear this was mentioned during the interKorean powwow but I want to hear it mentioned by our President.
Truman's decision to fire MacArthur and decide on a strategy of stalemate was a disaster. The thousands of Americans who died in Korea, including Otto Warmbier, died for something more than some nebulous agreement for North Korea to denuclearize, which I agree will never happen. Like their brethren who died in Europe and Asia they died for the freedom of the enslaved.
Regime change can be successful. Look at Germany which is similar with a democratic half. Abdicating U.S. leadership is always a catastrophe, look at Libya and Syria. I have no problem with Trump speaking to Kim Jung On as long as our values are not compromised in the interest of "respect" or "peace".
Those of you interested in how not to conduct this type of negotiation are referred to our recent opening of relations with Cuba, or you can ask the Cuban political prisoners who were not released as a result. Not a single one.
Donald, keep your eye on the ball. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everyone-no matter where they were born.
2
In 2002, North Korean negotiators didn’t admit “to pursuing a secret uranium-enrichment program”; Pyongyang adamantly denied the U.S. allegations. The most probable turn of events is that NK had an enrichment program in 2002; however, they didn’t really bother to keep it secret. In any case, even if the enrichment have reached then the volume and level which is required for producing an atomic explosion, a most doubtful proposition, it wouldn’t have constituted a breach of the Agreed Framework conditions.
Rather than confront the North Koreans and demand IAEA inspections of the suspected sites and that Pyongyang will halt its suspected efforts to start a military nuclear program, the Bush administration used the uranium allegations as an excuse to abandon the Agreed Framework. To quote John Bolton, then undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, and not a likely customer of any “peace bridge”: “this was the hammer I had been looking for to shatter the Agreed Framework”. And so Washington did, most notably by letting the promised “light-water” reactors (real “proliferation-resistant” energy facilities) project die by drying its sources of financing and later declaring North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil.
Pyongyang reacted, and the Framework collapsed.
3
Oddly enough, it's somwhat of a relief to know that I'm not the only cynic out there when it comes to Kim Jong-un and his new found amicability towards South Korea, and even the U.S.A.
Maybe that's because he's been playing hardball all along, and comes from such a long line of dictators who've brutalized their own countrymen while eating well and drinking French wines as everyone else slowly starves to death.
Anyone who has ever lived in a Communist country knows the score -- life is always good at the top. And there's no real reason why Kim Jong-un would want to change it.
No doubt the shopping-list of what he wants in return will be extensive, should he ever meet with Mr. Tump.
There's no need to expect anything other than more of the same.
Let the tweeting begin.
3
I suppose the question is, what will happen when the South Koreans ask Trump to remove US troops from South Korea? to remove South Korea from the US nuclear umbrella? What would be wrong with doing what the South Koreans ask?
1
Bret really seems to enjoy living in his psychological prison. What real advantage do we gain from not having a peace treaty 65 years on from the cessation of hostilities? The author epitomizes the reason that folks voted for Trump. To break the fossilized thinking in DC.
2
What comes to mind is Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football...
2
I too am suspicious of Kim.
But I’m also waiting for the moment Kim pulls the rug out from under DJT....because, I believe, it will happen. Kim will play DJT like a violin.
5
With Trump leading the way, now it seems everything is coming down to snake oil salesmen selling a bill of goods to everybody else.
Putin sold "Hillary's horror" ( and you Bret bought into it), Nigel Farage sold "Brexit", Naren Modi sold "Diversity and Peace", Trump sold "The Wall" (Pink Floyd is rightfully upset), Macron is selling "We love America", and Jong-Un is selling " North Korea".
Not to worry, the next round of elections in free democracies will set things right. We just have to wait a while.
1
Is there any leader out there we don't believe could outsmart and out negotiate Trump?
3
Bret Stephens is a neoconservative who sold us Iraq. Why is the New York Times giving this guy space to write. His opinion is meaningless. North Korea can't be trusted. The regime will eventually have to go, but war, which Mr. Stephens and the neoconservatives helped give us in Iraq is not the answer. This is the best available option. Anyone who understands the Korean peninsula knows this story will filter into North Korea. It has become very hard to control information there. The younger generation of North Koreans will meet see how others live and push for more change. Organic change. NOT forced change like in Iraq and Libya, which failed. You can't allow your dislike of Trump to distort your opinion. These are real people's lives, many of which have no food and just suffered through winter. This deal is progress without war. Something Mr Stephens and tbe neonconservatives seems to dislike.
2
Trust but verify should be our policy when dealing with North Korea. There have been several small attacks on South Korea through the years so I don't know if the US will ever be able to fully pull out of the Korean peninsula but a gradual draw down will likely be a part of any smart peace agreement. South Korea just isn't as militarized as north Korea. That leaves them vulnerable when dealing with a military minded authoritarian.
I'm not sure if Trump is capable of doing a smart agreement. He fancies himself as a deal maker but if he stays true to form a future president will get stuck cleaning up his mess. Kim Jong-Un is smart enough to realize that he'll get more concessions from Trump than any other president and he's going to take advantage of our idiot in chief's arrogance.
Still peace is preferable to war so if China and South Korea are able to work together to stabilize the Korean peninsula and improve the quality of life for North Koreans they should certainly try. The worst thing that will happen is the peace talks fail and the status quo remains. The whole point of economic sanctions was to bring Kim Jong-Un to the table.
Kim Jong-Un will not relinquish his nuclear weapons and he's not interested in regime change. He wants to be recognized by the international community and to be left alone. He also wants to retain power while letting the rest of the world invest in his country. It will be interesting to see how things go.
1
My guess is that Pompeo and Kim Jon-un spent the bulk of their get to know each other time discussing torture techniques.
2
Let's see, the Clinton deal with North Korea has lasted 22 years. If Trump can sqeeze another 22 out of Kim, that's not so bad, is it? Kim is not going to bomb the US. His country would vanish in hours should he make that attempt.
14
1994 to 2002 is 8 years, not 22. And North Korea was violating the accord from the beginning. We just didn't know it until 2002. The Clinton "deal" was essentially no deal at all.
That's where we need to be - no deal and no sanctions relief until there is truly verifiable, intrusive inspections of North Korea, or even better, regime change from within. My hope is that John Bolton is tough enough to convince Trump of this course of action.
10
Any how many millions of American lives are you willing to bet on a crazy man that has no problem killing his own people or family for that matter?
10
"Jamais deux sans trois" as the French say. Clinton and Bush II bought the bridge from the Kims of North Korea and now Trump (and Pompeo, his new warhawk in hame with John Bolton) will buy that bridge again - this time from Kim Jong-un. Regime change for the DPRK isn't in the cards for our 45th President. Negotiation won't separate the 55 year old totentanz of North and South Korea. But we look forward to seeing the Kim and Trump chips fall where they may in May.
1
I have not forgotten:
~The execution of political enemies by anti-aircraft gun.
~The tri-generational gulags.
~The speaker on the wall in every home.
~The barbaric, brutal torture of Otto Warmbier.
I am neither charmed nor forgiving.
The grifter is bamboozled.
The bleak dystopia of North Korea is a pox on the planet.
1
Trump has been played as he toots his own horn in triumph. He wants to claim he bullied North Korea into submission...that his crude bluster did the trick and scared Kim into denuclearization.
Yes- he just bought a bridge.
All Kim wants is some supplies, eased sanctions (like Putin) but by marginalizing Trump & US influence, he may get more than a wedge, withdrawal of US troops...he may get aid from South Korea.
Brotherhood?
W he should the Koreas wait on US policy? China plays possum.
Everyone has stealth & savvy except America..led by a man child who thinks belligerence is intelligence, bullying is strategy and e verybody else for 20 years were “babies.”
I hear the pot calling...
43
Come on Brett. The master and now President who, officially, wrote The Art of the Deal should and will be able to pull this one out. After all, did he just save the Winter Olympic Games in Korea?
Trust, but verify. Thank you Ronnie! (who took it from Lenin: Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser).
Trump at the Trump-Merkel press-conference: I'll take the 'responsibility', I have to take the 'responsibility'. Richard Quest called the stance "statesman-like".
Pure shell game. Trump is now trying for the Nobel Peace Prize. (He can't say it, but it annoys him no end that Obama got one right out of the box). And he'd even go as far as sharing the NPP with Kim Jung-un.
Keep your eyes on the birdie.
2
This was a long, highly biased column of dubious accuracy, (hint: GW Bush helped the treaty violations occur because he was “otherwise occupied” keeping America safe). Worst, there wasn’t an original thought in the entire piece.
4
The Kim Jong-un regime in North Korea is one of many that threaten humanity with nuclear weapons. We face other nuclear armed regimes such as those of Putin and Trump in addition. While estimates differ, the number of people threatened by the smaller nuclear regimes is comparable to the number of people who were killed as a result of Hitler's regime -- Hilter-level threats to humanity. While the most dangerous are the Putin and Trump regimes, perhaps 10 or 20 times as dangerous as Hitler, depending of how much of their arsenals they might use.
Previous generations relied on luck, and this has worked very well, except for two unfortunate events. Now, a large part of humanity is threatened - an existential threat to billions of people.
Will our luck hold forever? My generation doesn't want to be annihilated or threatened with dangerous weapons. To eliminate the nuclear weapons threat, we need help from top political scientists and analysts, the best and the brightest. Please, tell us the answer. We'll do the rest.
2
A Korean history professor from Tufts University was interviewed on NPR yesterday. He confirmed Bretts history lesson, only in a little more detail. To him, the bottom line is that it would be a big mistake to ease sanctions, and this just another chapter of the Kim family practice of escalation/rapprochement. Now I know Trump has advisors and all, but he is a man who has little interest in history.
2
This one gets my prize for the way to ensure humanity destroys itself:
"stick to the status quo. It’s served us well enough for 65 years." Wow! I guess the insulated comfort of those who have makes them blind to what is going on all around them. Like Luckwarmers, as long as they're doing well they can ignore burning up and toxifying the planet in a multitude of ways.
Combined with Brett Stephens' preference (mind you, he lives in Germany) for warmongers Bolton and Pompeo, and his NeverTrump rings hollow.
I recommend he reads "Stupid White Men" and uses his head. Mutually Assured Destruction is *not* serving us well. Even prosperous white men will not do well in the coming decades.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
3
Back in the 1970s the brilliant writer, John McPhee, wrote a book entitled "The Curve of Binding Energy". The book describes how a rogue group could construct nuclear weapons. It even describes the process for construction of such weapons. The main problem is apparently acquisition of the necessary fissionable material. I always thought that McPhee was describing a probable future event.
2
Stephens essentially ignores the role of South Korea in all this. Their current government wants an accommodation with North Korea. The US has essentially been a spectator to everything that happened over the last 48 hours.
5
I believe all sides in this process would do well to listen to Mr. Aesop and his stories of placing trust in an opponent shown by history to be untrustworthy.
6
Aesop has an instructive tale about the frogs who wanted a king. That should serve for the Trumpers amongst us.
4
As far as I can tell, North Korea's two major industries are exporting nuclear components and blackmailing the west, with China's silent assent. Given that, why would the possibly negotiate anything?
Pompeo is all for regime change - North Korea, Iran. Probably, along with his buddy Bolton, thinks it worked well in Iraq and Afghanistan. He with enough armies on the Risk board, anyone can win.
What is the least bad option? Getting China to agree to rein in North Korea. There can be no change without China getting comfortable with the 800 mile border and the probability of vast numbers of vastly poor refugees.
We are negotiating with the wrong player.
16
The status is not quo and cannot be now that Kim has or is about to have capable ICBM’s. This is a point I’d have thought Bret would have noticed.
4
I couldn’t be less qualified to opine on Korean politics, but it does seem like we’ve are being played. It’s all too fast and way too convenient. We can only sit back, wait for the next crazy twist, and react. On the other hand, I do think that some of the commentators’ incredulity is driven by a fervent wish that Trump’s handling of Kim - basically counterthreat, insult and escalate - cannot be rewarded by recognizing the events of the past few days as true progress.
3
It is the US that has been selling bridges. And not only to North Korea. Just ask South Korea that needed to "renegotiate" its trade treaty. Or Iran, that daily sees how the US is violating the clause that its public officials should support the agreement and refrain from any statements that harm its implementation.
But in the case of North Korea America's behavior is the worst. The US never delivered on its agreements. There was never complete relieve of sanctions. Neither did the talk about regime change ever stop. And certainly in view of the US sponsored murder of Gaddafi - of which Clinton was so proud - Kim had little choice.
It is nice to see that Mr. Stephens care about the 100,000 prisoners in North Korea's Gulag. Unfortunately there is no sign that he also cares about the 500,000 Syrians who died - partly thanks to his war mongering. And does he ever have a thought for all the victims of America's mass incarceration?
Once upon a time you had East and West Germany. The East was communist and had political prisoners. But West Germany - in cooperation with the US - handled the situation in a way that reduced tensions and stressed cooperation. They didn't hide their position on human right violations but they thought it wise to focus on other aspects. This worked out very well and the Germany's are now re-united. In that light America's North Korea policy is a very big failure.
17
“What’s mostly stunning about all this is the predictability of the choreography.” And so too we well recognize the dance routine now on stage. Kim Jong-un wants the status that comes with meeting the American President as a (notional) equal, and possibly relief from sanctions at little or no cost. Trump is mostly concerned with self-aggrandisement. FOX news is already a-twitter with talk of a Nobel Peace Prize. And while I do hope something good comes from these meetings, it will surely be incidental. The cynicism is indeed dazzling.
5
Yikes. I have been eagerly waiting for a reputable, conservative person to say this. I've been accused of " sour grapes " and " unrepentant Trump hater " for suggesting just this scenario. Put two megalomaniac, lifetime Con Artists together, and what's the result ??? Nothing good. Major bragging rights for their respective regimes, a lot of sound and fury, signifying a dragged out, fruitless process. In other words, an international reality SHOW. Let's just see what progress in made in six months, or a year. NONE. Based on the actual record of the Presidential Apprentice, that's a very, very safe bet. Where's the Beef, Donald ?????
11
Stick to the status quo? I think you mean "status quo ante", the situation we had before North Korea had the capacity to kill a million of us with the push of a button. That toothpaste isn't going back into the tube.
"Jaw jaw is better than war war" said Churchill, a guy who was good at both. If Trump and Kim want to sit down together instead of playing nuclear chicken with us strapped into the passenger seats, let it be.
4
That Republicans are already declaring mission accomplished and clamoring for Trump to get what Obama got speaks to how little they know about leadership and governing. As with their work on the tax bill and climate regulation, Republicans can't see much farther than their own noses, or wallets. The only response to Kim's soft invasion of South Korea this week is resolve and extreme patience. If Trump were a true leader he'd know that a solution to the Korean War is still years away and requires a lot of work on his part. Accolades, if there are any, would be years away.
This is an historic opportunity for Trump. But it won't be for us here today to decide whether he was successful or not. If he and the Republicans don't understand that they could make things much worse.
3
Oh yes, Obama’s Nobel was due to wonderful democratic leadership.
Poor republicans they no so little. How can we survive.
What would work better than using Trump’s own business model against the USA?
2
Yes, by all means, take out Kim and create regime change and reinforce the North Korean narrative that the U.S. is an imperialistic monster. And, by all means, Trump should stand up there and tweet "We will be viewed by the North Korean people as liberators." And then tell the American middle class: "That tax cut? We need a trillion dollars back, please. The wealthy and corporations will need to keep theirs to shore up the American economy during the war." And : 'All my predecessors were disaster creators. I will not be like that. But take solace, we will punish the North Koreans with a scorched earth, fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen." And Fox and Friends will be all smiles as we commit genocide. And the world will be aghast. While the correct chaplain says the right prayers praising America as defending Christian values.
6
If Bret Stephens is correct, and I believe he is, this entire "summit" between Kim and Trump is a charade intended to bolster Trump's ego and home-town political standing.
The goal of complete de-nuclearization, which is the stated policy of this administration (and others past) is a pipe dream. Kim is not going to abandon his nuclear option. Which leaves us where, exactly?
5
The US should admit that it does not have all the answers and leave Korea to the Koreans. That is not likely to happen with Bolton and Pompeo.
5
If Trump was a truly smart person, interested in the judgement of history, if peace were to be achieved on the Korean Peninsula, he would: (I) Take the credit; (ii) claim that peace on Earth was all that he ever wanted; (iii) Say that despite his good intentions and brilliance-as demonstrated by his achieving a peace which had eluded the World for 50 years- all he ever got from the elitists and their squawk box the NY Times was mockery and criticism; and (iv) therefore, he was resigning immediately and therefor the World would not benefit further from his labors. The result, within a few years he would be counted amongst the misunderstood great who could achieved so much had his term not been cut short. Think that is just plain stupid? Consider-after 3 years of accomplishing nothing, John Kennedy’s death was marked as one of the greatest disasters of the 20th Century. People still speculate on what he would have done had he stayed in office. Imagine if he had actually accomplished something.
1
Although we cannot say 'never ever' (and I'm not taking about The Saint's lyrics)', the sudden conversion of two clowns into statesmen for world peace remains dubious at best, no matter the 'boasting and self-congrats'. Even cautious optimism is suspect of naive thinking, given that North Korea's nuclear threat is a defense to keep their ruthless despotism alive...on the backs, and suffering, of it's own people. This, and the warmongering itchy fingers of the 'darth vaders' Trump/Bolton/Pompeo, does not augur a happy ending. And playing with fire ends up burning too many in the process. That Fox Noise is already talking about a Noble prize for corrupt Donald is a gross exaggeration (for them, just 'business as usual'). Who would have thought that the 'status quo' is worth considering?
2
We are left to ask: By what measure has the status quo "...served us well for 65 years."?
2
no war on the korean peninsula..... and that's about it..... but the prospects for the next 65 do not look as good. kim IS a nuclear power and he knows it. the only people that don't seem to understand this are the american people. we are participating in trump's reality show by believing this is anything but a dangerous and empty charade.
1
The gnashing of teeth and wailing over Kim's nukes and missiles was way over the top. The promise of, "Fire and fury." from Mr. Trump was utter nonsense. Kim knows his military might is enough to maintain stalemate long into the foreseeable future. He has a pat hand to play against the world's worst bluffer. Trump has sanctions. Nothing more.
Kim now looks like the conciliator, holding out the hand of friendship and peace. Trump looks like the bully who's threatened a disastrous war or further sanctions. South Korea has moved closer to the North. America's negotiating position is weaker than it was. Even maintaining the existing sanctions will be hard. New ones will be almost impossible to get from the rest of the world.
Trump was used to playing marks to invest in his casinos, pay for his brand on a steak or hotel room, or enroll in Trump "University". Kim is used to playing the world's leaders against one another.
Were I a betting man, I'd bet the bundle on Kim. Putting faith in Trump is a sucker's bet.
2
Macron of France and Kim of North Korea are very different leaders, but isn’t it fascinating to watch them play to Trump’s vanity and screaming need for adulation and wins?
Frankly, I think Kim Jun Un will come out way ahead of Macron on this gambit.
8
"Kim Jong-un Sells a Peace Bridge"
But it's a "Beautiful Bridge" says our leader. All Trump sees in this upcoming meeting is pomp and ceremony, lots of flashy stuff and a chance to gloat about a great peacemaker he is. Then like his praise for Putin, he'll tell the world how nice Kim Jong-un. And we should lift the sanctions.
Another win for the Kim Dynasty.
8
Naive, ignorant, obtuse, too old to see the danger so appartent to the many pundits spinning their cautionary tales?
Guilty on all counts.
The door is nonetheless open and the two leaders who are choosing to walk through happen to be the only two leaders who count.
2
The U.S. has caused many Regime changes and it has always been a calamity for the Countries that had the changes. Mike Pompeo oversaw that in the CIA and John Bolton has been way off base as our National Security Advisor.
Some in the Government have always been for regime change, but their advice has mostly been wrong and has led us into many wars as a result.
When are we going to learn our lessons.
20
No matter where or in what country, today in this modern age, success is measured as quality of life, freedom, economic and technological progress, health, peace and safety.
Why has the United States, with an average of about 40,000 troops, continued to be the primary defender of the border between North and South Korea over the past 67 years...when it was originally supposed to be a multinational effort of the United Nations Command?
Over the years there has been rotating military representation from Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, Thailand, and Turkey, along with token troops from New Zealand, France, Greece, Belgium, Netherlands, et al....but, the United States has been the foreign hammer constantly backing up the South Korean military with its state-of-the-art weaponry.
When do we earn the right to bring most of our 23,500 soldiers home, replacing them with a rainbow of international representation culled from the 193 members of the United Nations?
12
While I may be skeptical of Kim's intentions, I'm not sure my skepticism, or Stephens', or Trump's, will determine whether North Korea and South Korea reach an agreement; indeed, Stephens doesn't even mention South Korea, which has the most to lose if there is war. And that may well be Kim's strategy: drive a wedge between South Korea and the U.S. Trump has already offended South Korea with talk of economic sanctions, so it wouldn't take much to sever the alliance.
3
Kim believes Trump is a one-term US President whose flaws neatly fit negotiating now.
Meaning a 2-year clock is running on North Korea's main chance -- that a US President will botch the negotiating process, put the US, not the North, in a corner on sanctions relief, and provide plausible cover for keeping nuclear arms.
Kim has everything to gain by lettiung Trump make himself Exhibit A for a North Korean nuclear program.
40
Kim-Jong Un has taken the measure of Trump and decided this is the right time to bamboozle the US. A promise to denuclearize sometime in the future in exchange for lifting sanctions today. The future to be decided in the distant future.
8
Under the status quo, North Korea has developed nuclear weapons and delivery systems. The alternative to the status quo would be to reopen the Korean War and force regime change on the North by military means. The last time we tried this, we wound up fighting China as well, and now both of them have nuclear weapons.
The last time we tried this, we had the support of South Korea. But the South Koreans made the strategic mistake of keeping their capital and largest city within easy range of North Korean weapons, so that in the event of a new war, Seoul would be a hostage. We would have trouble gaining South Korean support for going on the offensive.
The status quo is that we are periodically played by Pyongyang. The best option is to stick to the status quo, and hope that the prosperity and success of South Korea will give us and them an ultimate victory.
5
North Korea's strategy keeps working because American leaders have no genuine interest in peace, reunification, demilitarization, denuclearization or any of the other possible outcomes Pyongyang likes to dangle in front of us. All the American President is ever looking for is a political win to impress the folks back home. The long-term consequences are irrelevant. All that matters to America is the next election a few months down the road. Now it's Trump's turn to play peacemaker, and Kim can get whatever he wants out of us as long as he makes Trump think that his twitter threats somehow constitute an effective foreign policy. The sad part is that Americans are so shortsighted that they'll be convinced too, and they'll give Trump the votes he needs to turn our Republic into the next North Korea.
21
Effective sanctions on North Korea depend on China, who can enforce them or help North Korea evade them. China wants the continued existence of North Korea, but a North Korea that will not challenge whatever limits China wants to impose.
The austere ideology with which North Korea perpetuates itself is more likely to be worn away by prosperity and prosperity's corruption than by oppression. As the citizens of North Korea become aware of conditions in the rest of the world, their government will transition into a dictatorship that rests mainly on secret police rather than the brainwashed ignorance of the populace.
2
The bridge is sold yet again and Trump thinks he has made a deal. A written statement, no matter how elaborate and optimistic it reads, is not a done deal and is only worth as much as the men and women who acts in good faith.
If, and I emphasize IF, a Nobel peace price should be given it should be to the two Korean leaders. A Tweet storm followed by sending the CIA Head to Korea constitutes as much a Nobel price in medicine as telling a patient to take an aspirin.
As Stephens writes it takes years to realize if peace is real and the bridge can be sold many times in that meantime.
34
If this is all a cynical ploy by Kim Jung Un I have to give him credit. At least he has a coherent plan. We have a secretary of state and a national security adviser at odds with each other, a history of being played over and over again by Kim's relatives and a President who couldn't find North Korea on a map if you showed him where South Korea was located first.
146
Watch Trump hail as a great triumph a deal that leaves Kim with all his nukes, while at the same time he pulls out of a deal that stopped Iran’s nuclear program. For Trump, theatrics and bluster is everything. He cares nothing for substance. Reason? He always leaves before the check arrives. This time, we and our kids will be stuck with it.
173
There will be no true accord with the Kim family, only a path forward to another mini-Iran. If sanctions are lifted it will empower the regime with cash and it will be a perpetual thorn, fomenting and financing terrorism endlessly. One does not win peace with a nuclear-armed despot through talk. This is world history and to believe otherwise is magical thinking.
7
"But it will be tragic to watch another administration being played by Pyongyang. Better advice for the White House: If you have no good options, stick to the status quo. It’s served us well enough for 65 years.'
Mr. Stephens, how would it be tragic? As you point out, the multi-decade status quo IS a dance of escalate-and-conciliate / cheat-and-repeat. No one REALLY believes it but no one blows anything up.
Better the same old dance than letting our emotionally unstable, profoundly ignorant president try to learn a few new steps. When it comes to any level of complexity, Trump has two left feet.
Let him go to the dance, sign a meaningless deal, and declare himself the greatest peacemaker of all time. Give him a participation ribbon.
Just don't let him do a duet with Bolton.
6
"But it will be tragic to watch another administration being played by Pyongyang. Better advice for the White House: If you have no good options, stick to the status quo. It’s served us well enough for 65 years."
While I'm enthusiastically on board with Bret Stephen's conclusion, it seems unlikely that the North American Dear Leader will abandon this (tremendous) opportunity to fulfill his newly proclaimed mission of SAVING THE WORLD. Visions of Nobel Peace prizes will soften those nightmares of self and family being hauled off to jail.
12
Genius!
Let's instead do everything in our power to stoke hostilities between North and South Korea.
When war and mayhem ensues, then we can send our very own troops to die (or just have the thousands we already have there put themselves out to be blown up).
Then? Well then, we proceed to "transform" the place. Remember how Tom Friedman told us invading Iraq on the basis of lies was an amazing opportunity to "transform" the Middle East? Well now we have an even more amazing opportunity to "transform" the Korean peninsula. Let's take it!
Can't wait! We can be heroes again. Sure, thousands of our servicemen will be killed and even more maimed and wounded. But hey, it's a tough world. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Koreans will die too. But we're talking about Americans here. About American interests. And nothing "supports" them better than guns, bombs and war. We've got the track record on that (maybe it doesn't "back it up," but still, it is a record). We're sure to stay true to our roots with thinkers like you backing us up Bret.
11
The status quo, far from serving us well, has allowed the Kim family to get ever closer to having nuclear ICBM capability whilst continuing a very aggressive posture & gross human rights abuses. Rather, I think everyone should be doing their best to at least transform North Korea closer to China, which is a far friendlier nuclear power. Hopefully the young Kim has/can be persuaded of the utility of this. Even if the US were to withdraw most ground forces, won't it be more than capable of defending South Korea from the air?
2
“It was an unmistakable call for regime change, and Pompeo promised that the intelligence community would provide “a wide range of options for the president about how we might go about that.” Apparently they came up short. Hence the interest in negotiation.”
..and chickenhawk pundits sell us continual war for profit.
The US did such a great job of regime change in Iraq ,Libya and trying with Syria recently, setting the Middle East into chaos. The military is a profit center in the US and the corporate media its cheerleader for more war. They always like to get excited at seeing a missile launch against an adversary, without understanding the damage when it lands.
Lets be honest brokers and give negotiations a fair chance.
4
It did seem real, watching the dictator of N. Korea walk straight into the open arms of S. Korean President Moon Jae-in. It was cleverly choreographed, flawlessly executed.
The only thing missing was the passionate swell of an orchestra reflecting the power of the moment The bad guy saw the light. Redemption. And all is right with world.
I have been horrified as my political dream bubbles have burst lately, but this time I'm ready.
3
No one is rolling over this time. Every gesture will be analyzed and every word scrutinized. The world cannot afford the cynicism that says no progress is ever possible. If not this generation, then the next. Ask the people of Berlin; never say never.
5
I find myself quite agreeing with this. It would be foolish to think North Korea will adhere to any deal, and with President Trump, it would be foolish to think we'd adhere to any deal. North Korea could probably get huge concessions just by calling it the "Trump Peace Treaty" talking about how great a negotiator he is, and expressing an interest in a Trump hotel for the country.
The sort of pressurized containment hasn't work very well, but it's better than the alternatives. The path to a workable regime change goes through China, and we don't have than now and Trump doesn't seem to be trying to go in that direction.
8
Kim’s in pretty good shape here. He has a nuclear arsenal and a solid backing in N Korea. Trump, on the other hand, knows nothing about the issues, won’t listen to advice, and can’t focus long enough to speak a paragraph.
Kim has to sell a bridge? No problem.
173
A year from now when the negotiations have collapsed or Trump has
given away the farm for the sake of a "great deal for the world" we'll look back on this and see what fools Kim has made of The South and the US. Kim wants nuclear weapons and international legitimacy. We may not be able to prevent NK from being a nuclear power but we can surely deny him the legitimacy and sanctions relief he's after.
4
That would have been music to Kim’s ear, since a fundamental goal of North Korean policy is to drive a wedge between Seoul and Washington.
Accomplished.
4
I can't blame President Moon for pursuing the possibility of peace; he and his citizens have the most to lose if a deal is not consummated and the state of war is renewed. Also, a good many of those citizens have family members in the North and would certainly love to see them again. Trump, on the other hand, would plainly love to burnish his credentials as a deal-maker (and maybe even a peace-broker) just as long as Kim does the unthinkable and forfeits the nuclear arsenal that he's spent so much time and money developing. It seems clear to me that such a deal just isn't going to happen, leaving each side to blame the other when the whole thing goes up in smoke. In any event, The Donald is fixated on the wrong issue here: even if Kim does end up with a dozen or so nukes they'll never be a match for what we've got and he's not crazy enough to launch them preemptively. The real problem with the PDRK, as Mr. Stephens suggests, is the fact that it's the world's biggest prison camp, a country whose citizens are denied any access to the world around them and persecuted if they somehow learn enough about that world as to denounce their Dear Leader even within the confines of their home (some "dissidents" are turned in by their own family members). It's a living nightmare from which there is virtually no escape, but to our own country's feckless leader it's all about the nukes, his pride and his cajones.
45
Lucy and the annual Charlie kick the football ritual comes to mind. Is it true that the reactor complex Kim is offering to deactivate has already been deactivated? If so, does that mean North Korea already has a new secret complex in development?
South Korea gets a temporary reduction in tensions between the two countries. Trump gets his unverifiable practice treaty. The next president gets a surprise when the CIA reports Kim has been cheating, just like dad did, twice.
Trump the lying negotiator has met his match.
No, really, I mean it, Charlie Brown. I’ll let you kick the football this time. For real.
73
We are dancing around the critical question. Can denuclearization be effectively monitored? Personally, I do not know the answer to this, but the experience of the last 25 years in dealing with both North Korea and Iran suggests to me that it cannot be done. If it can be done and the Trump Administration can strike a deal that implements effective monitoring, I would support it. If it cannot be done or no such deal is available, then we must move forward with the military option.
If we must, we can decapitate the North Korean government and destroy their ability to effectively counter-attack. If we believe in nuclear nonproliferation, we have no choice. You cannot rationally state a principle as important but be unwilling to enforce the principle. If we are not willing to prevent North Korea, of all countries, from having nuclear weapons (and ICBMs), then we could not possibly argue against nuclear weapons for any country on Earth. Military strikes will not be painless. Many people will die, especially in North Korea, but if we abandon nuclear nonproliferation eventually hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people will die from the detonation of nuclear weapons.
We are where we are now because of a counterproductive aversion toward a military solution. The longer we wait the heavier the price we will pay--one way or another.
4
Easy to say sitting in your den in the good ol' USA. Now let's send you and the family on a one year vacation to Seoul and see how you feel.
5
Well, he could try. That certainly was his father’s and grandfather’s formula for bare-bones economic sufficiency for a time. The Kimchi doesn’t fall far from the pot. But I don’t believe that Trump will let him. After all, burn Bill Clinton and shame on you; burn Dubya and more shame on you, plus much pique on everyone else’s part; but burn Trump and us a third time, and Trump looks like a sucker. He’d never allow that.
If Kim even tries it, I suspect that sanctions will be doubled, that we’ll start boarding ships in and out of North Korea, and that Trump will cut some advantageous deal with China to fully seal Kim’s border.
The only reason that Kim is in South Korea talking peace is that he probably sees this as his alternative, too. Oh, he’ll undoubtedly try to keep his nukes and the infrastructure to make more, and his missiles; but Trump just isn’t going to cave.
And as Pompeo Pomp-ificated, there’s always regime change, which sends a pretty potent message to whoever takes Kim’s place. Remember Michael Corleone’s immortal words in Godfather II.
It’s not just Fox that’s agitating for a Nobel Peace Prize for Trump should he succeed – increasingly, it’s congressional Republicans. So Trump has an added incentive for getting this right. HE would have gotten HIS the old fashioned way: he would have EARNED it.
The only thing that’s astonishing here is that Bret’s hatred of Trump is SO intense that he insists on being the Grinch about even THIS. Shame on you.
7
You're dreaming my friend. North Korea can't be trusted. Ever. This spectacle we're watching is a gift wrapped empty box.
8
Sometimes it's better to be lucky than to be good. While some of the credit may go to Trump for his "I'm just as crazy as you" stance, the biggest driver of the current shift is that North Korea has reached their goal: they have nukes and they have delivery systems, so they can now negotiate from a position of strength and they have leverage. The danger is that Trump is so hungry for victory and to insulate himself from the Mueller probe that he will negotiate from a position of desperation. Also, don't be surprised if somewhere in the background Putin or Xi is sweetening things for Kim to make a deal and keep Trump in power. More concessions to Russia and/or China would follow. There are many levels to what is going on here.
255
" There are many levels to what is going on here"
Everyone you mentioned ( you forgot Putin) are playing 3-D chess , and trump and his 'very best brain bank' advising him are playing checkers.
16
Your first sentence hits the crux of the matter in a way that gets lost in other analyses with 10x the words. Good writing.
8
Your mentioning how hungry Trump is for a victory reminds me of how Obama got us into the Iran deal.
But then again Trump is not the babe in the woods that Obama was, so there is hope.
1
In a negotiation, everybody uses the leverage they've got. For North Korea, aside from their nukes, their main leverage is that everybody else so desperately wants to believe they will give them up. That sliver of hope will drive a lot of concessions to Mr. Kim, unfortunately.
38
And you are talking about a man who consolidated power quickly and completely while still very young, and did so with utter brutality. Recall that he has ordered executions of subordinates by forcing one to stand on a target and be hit by a mortar, by having one executed with a flame thrower, and by firing anti-aircraft weapons directly at another, the last being done before dozens of witnesses. The man is conscienceless. I cannot imagine him giving up any weapon at all, let alone nuclear weapons.
73
I agree, Josh. Hence, the "sliver of hope" reference. That's the bridge he's selling, which is the same one he sold in 1992.
"A peace deal between the United States and North Korea to establish formal relations and end the Korean War would be hailed, even by many liberals"
says this conservative, even as he calls a peace deal "a bridge."
Much of this debate is not about a peace deal, and not even about Korea. It is about Trump. Hate him, oppose him, even if that means no peace.
This ranting against our interest in favor of partisan antagonism is disgusting. This author wants it both ways, as much a part of that problem as those he denounces, because he wants no peace but credit of Trump anyway.
19
Trump doesn't have the stamina or attention span to see this through, assuming that it is not just a ploy by North Korea. It's not ranting to recognize this and have doubts. His meeting with Un will be premature and just an elaborate photo op. To reach an agreement that secures real inspections and surrender of existing nuclear capacity will take many months, if not years. The Iran deal, which Trump is prepared to scrap for no good reason, was easy compared to this. Is Trump being sold a bridge? He wouldn't know because, to paraphrase, he probably doesn't realize how complicated denuclearization can be.
24
Has that status quo really served us that well?
Not for the people on the West Coast who don’t know what an unpredictable but hostile North Korea will mean for them.
Not for the citizens of South Korea and Japan, who know that they are in the immediate vicinity of any aggression from North Korea.
Not for the people of North Korea who are starving and suffering under sanctions which, let’s face it, hurt the innocent more deeply than they hurt those in power.
Will we improve North Korea’s atrocious human rights record? No - but we also aren’t going to improve human rights records in any number of countries worldwide, especially Asian, Middle-Eastern and African, either, and we live with it. The United States can only improve what we realistically can and face up to our limitations.
Does Kim Jong Un mean it?
Time will tell. Maybe he has had enough of being the face of a pariah state; or is embarrassed by the number of defections from his country; or was encouraged by the thaw at the olympics this year; or is scared of being attacked.
Ultimately, we can’t know if his peaceful overtures will be serious, any more than we can know if the saber rattling was serious, either. But implausible diplomatic breakthroughs have happened after decades of futility. Trying beats the status quo.
62
Trying buys time, until a new American President can, with sanity, intelligence, and a good team behind him, reach an agreement that is as solid as is realistically possible. Many experts on the subject believe that Kim Jong Un is being pressured to stop testing by China, and is crippled by severe sanctions. His sister is also a very good propagandist. I wish there were someone left in the State department who could actually take advantage of his weaknesses. Instead, we are saddled with this aggressive ignoramus of a President who breaks everything he touches.
37
We can't absolutely rule out a breakthrough, but trying has kept us in the status quo for decades. There's no good reason not to try, but no good reason to expect that trying will produce a different result this time. And trying too hard may only make things worse.
6
"Will we improve North Korea’s atrocious human rights record? No - but we also aren’t going to improve human rights records in any number of countries worldwide, especially Asian, Middle-Eastern and African, either, and we live with it. The United States can only improve what we realistically can and face up to our limitations."
What chutzpah, what unmitigated gall, for the USA to criticize any other country for it's human rights record as long as this "land of the free" leads the entire globe in the incarceration rate of it's citizens. Add in that we throw brown-skinned folks in jail at a rate that's more than 8 times (Yikes!!) that of us Whities. Shameful! Then there's our disgusting history of "extraordinary rendition" and torture of citizens of other sovereign nations, the atrocities @ Abu Ghraib, et alii.
We can "realistically improve" by cleaning up our own act - maybe then we'll have the right to lecture/sanction others.
14